Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XIII, Western Europe and Canada

434. Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassy in Canada⁰

Washington, May 8, 1962, 8:52 p.m.

1081. For Ambassador from Acting Secretary. Very appreciative your letter May 5.¹ Questions you raise have received most serious consideration highest levels. Basis this consideration request that you now pursue following course of action with regard this matter.

1. You should go back to Prime Minister and, with reference to conversation May 4, indicate your own personal reluctance report to Washington anything which could be construed as a threat to publish private communication directed to President US by one of his staff officers. Such publication would cast grave shadow over public attitudes between our two countries and make difficult future relations between President and Prime Minister. Indicate your view that even suggestion possibility such publication would have bad effect in Washington and that President would be troubled about relations with a Government which would consider using his personal papers for a political purpose. As friend of PM’s and of Canada you have therefore held off reporting to Washington pending further talks with him.

2. Should PM not respond satisfactorily you should add that if document published it would be impossible for you or any friend of Canada to explain this action to USG. Both Canadian and US Governments have complete record Ottawa discussions between President and Prime Minister and we all know that no improper pressure of any sort exerted. Record clearly indicates that Canadian response President’s speeches in Ottawa as well as reaction those who took part in private talks was that of greatest enthusiasm.

3. Re Pearson visit. You should indicate this was an entirely informal meeting arranged at Pearson’s request through personal friend of both men. You have checked with Washington and find that meeting lasted only 20 minutes—from 7:30 to 7:50—during period when President had small private reception in his apartment before going down to dinner. Intent was for a private and off-the-record meeting. Its existence became known only when newsmen saw Pearson arrive early.

4. You should also indicate that it would be most unusual for President refuse receive former Foreign Minister and opposition leader of friendly country. President has had many such meetings in past including recent lunch which he gave for Gaitskell and recent meeting with Erler which lasted longer than meeting with Pearson.

5. You may wish remind PM that invitations to Nobel Prize dinner were issued before elections called. To recall invitation because of political campaign would have indeed been an act of intervention.

6. You should show real sympathy with Diefenbaker on strains characteristic of political campaigns. You might indicate this happens in US and that you have heard President himself express his feelings of resentment about situation in 1960 campaign when it appeared that certain foreign leaders were making statements favorable to Mr. Nixon. You should also indicate the fact the no one in authority in US Government, least of all the President, has said or done anything that could be construed as interference in any way in Canadian election.

FYI. President has no intention or desire to seek meeting near future with PM. We also cabling separately for your information Rostow memo² which quite innocent, and should strengthen your position. End FYI.

Ball

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 611.42/5–862. Secret; Eyes Only; No Distribution. Drafted by Springsteen (U) and approved by Ball. The instruction in this telegram is a close paraphrase of a memorandum from Bundy to Ball, May 8. (Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Canada)
1. Document 433.
2. Transmitted in telegram 1080 to Ottawa, May 8. (Department of State, Central Files, 611.42/5–862)